The smaller the division, the less difference in ability between top club and bottom.

Sorry Richie but I disagree. The top 4 clubs will always be a step ahead of the so called smaller clubs it won't bridge the gap if the league is smaller. The top 4 are the top 4 because they pay more on wages and get better quality players making the league smaller wont sort the gap Richie. But to be honest I don't know what will but that's the RFLs job to find a solution that's if they want to of course.

Or is it just good for a handful of clubs who want to be in SL but can't compete?

There is a big difference

Anyone??

Our problems are built around strangling the potential of our current Super clubs via salary cap, take the ceiling away and limit to 50% income. If that means Leeds/Wigan/Wire/Saints/Hull can spend £3-4M then brilliant - we can look at Welsh RU players again which has a knock on for the Welsh National team.

Sorry Richie but I disagree. The top 4 clubs will always be a step ahead of the so called smaller clubs it won't bridge the gap if the league is smaller. The top 4 are the top 4 because they pay more on wages and get better quality players making the league smaller wont sort the gap Richie. But to be honest I don't know what will but that's the RFLs job to find a solution that's if they want to of course.

Well, that's your opinion, perhaps, but I struggle to reconcile it with my perception.

Sorry Richie but I disagree. The top 4 clubs will always be a step ahead of the so called smaller clubs it won't bridge the gap if the league is smaller.

Griff says "The smaller the division, the less difference in ability between top club and bottom".

But neither of you back up your stance?

The reduction in the division gives the following SKY monies.....

14 clubs £1.3M12 clubs £1.5M10 clubs £1.8M

With 14 clubs some have not been able to pay full wages.With 10 clubs SKY money pays ALL the wages.

The crowd averages are also likely to rise per club if you take out clubs on small attendances.

Taking out the weakest clubs takes out the weakest 50 or 100 players the best of whom the new "smaller clubs" may feel will improve their team.

Would you gentlemen like to have a re-think and agree something??

All things being even so far I suggest that clubs will sort out on an additional two bases.....

1. The clubs with the best juniors rising up through their careers will get best value for money and performance from these players. Clubs who don't produce top juniors will pay through the nose for ageing stars on their way down. This is what american sport avoids.

2. All things being even an established pot winning club will get the nod from prospective transfer targets over clubs with no record of winning pots.

Our problems are built around strangling the potential of our current Super clubs via salary cap, take the ceiling away and limit to 50% income. If that means Leeds/Wigan/Wire/Saints/Hull can spend £3-4M then brilliant - we can look at Welsh RU players again which has a knock on for the Welsh National team.

We must never create equality by holding back the big clubs.

Craiq

I love the last line. It sounds great and I'm fed it a lot.

But the reality is that we can't get top Rugby Union players.

I would say that we have a player shortage because after 17 years SL clubs are producing far too few top juniors, the quality of imports is going down, the top british players are looking to NRL and we see players who are ending their careers or fading at top SL clubs being snapped up by bottom SL clubs.We see clubs claiming to be paying full cap losing games regularly against clubs they should not lose to.

I'd put it to people that if the £13,000,000 we spend on SL players every year was increased to £18,000, it may not increase the quality of the playing squads?

I'd throw it in there that if Leeds were allowed to spend another £100K then such as Cas may have to say bye to their quality young hooker Mr. Clark? Mr. Moran would have young Bateman?

Is it the case that unleashing the spending power of the top clubs would severely restrict the bottom clubs?

3 year franchise, objective to move to 10/12 then 12/12 as enough clubs able/willing to meet criteria. Clubs entering admin would be removed should a non SL club have met criteria and wished to move up.

3 year franchise, objective to move to 10/12 then 12/12 as enough clubs able/willing to meet criteria. Clubs entering admin would be removed should a non SL club have met criteria and wished to move up.

Or is it just good for a handful of clubs who want to be in SL but can't compete?

There is a big difference

Anyone??

It's good for three reasons.

1. It allows more SL teams to be able to function and so prevents a regression to a small boring rump of a 6 or 7 team league.

2. It allows some of the top CC clubs to be more able to develop to the point where they too can compete in SL. It enlrages the gene pool. Interbreeding in small family units is bad.

3. It stabilises the whole top tier and prevents the mass bankruptcies we have seen in the last few years and so allows the game to present a more positive image of a large, vibrant, stable competition to the outsdie world to encourage sponsors , investors and TV companies to be part of it.

4. It does not have to be permanent. If the whole of the member clubs start to be financially stable and able to afford to pay players more, it can be increased as necessary.

Our problems are built around strangling the potential of our current Super clubs via salary cap, take the ceiling away and limit to 50% income. If that means Leeds/Wigan/Wire/Saints/Hull can spend £3-4M then brilliant - we can look at Welsh RU players again which has a knock on for the Welsh National team.

3 year franchise, objective to move to 10/12 then 12/12 as enough clubs able/willing to meet criteria. Clubs entering admin would be removed should a non SL club have met criteria and wished to move up.

That sounds pretty good apart from 1. What about p and r from SL2 to the Championships and 2. How do you have London, with no fans, no ground and a lousy team in SL ahead of newly cashed up Widnes and Salford in new stadia or maybe even Toulouse in a new/improeved stadium and well heeld investors.

I think exposing ourselves to the wage market of union would be a mistake

PROUD TO BE A MEMBER OF http://www.rugbyleaguecares.org/ and http://www.walesrugb...-wales-for-2013Predictions for the future -Crusaders RL to get a franchise for 2012 onwards -WRONGWidnes Vikings also to get a franchise - RIGHTCrusaders RL to do the double over Widnes and finish five places ahead of them -WRONGWidnes Vikings NOT to dominate rugby league in years to come! STILL TO COME

That sounds pretty good apart from 1. What about p and r from SL2 to the Championships and 2. How do you have London, with no fans, no ground and a lousy team in SL ahead of newly cashed up Widnes and Salford in new stadia or maybe even Toulouse in a new/improeved stadium and well heeld investors.

1. Covered in post, 3 year franchise and objective to expand by the entry of ambitious clubs able to meet criteria2. London will work, and must work. It is now producing players but plays in the wrong area

Are we saying that the bulk of the "blow-out" scores don't involve the bottom four clubs ?

I'm too busy with work to give it the attention it deserves at the moment but if that doesn't prove to be true I'd gladly concede the point.

I don't know, plenty of time to analyse the point.

My gut feeling is based on the extreems where if the top four clubs played each other all the time we'd get a certain level of results including blow out scores. If the top four played the bottom four in a sixteen team league you'd also get mixed results including blow out scores. I'd guess at a lot more.

Inclusiveness may lead to more "foregone conclusions" foregone conclusions aren't too good at attracting fans.

I remember Leeds playing in the old one division in which you played all the clubs in your county. Some dreadful one sided games in those days and some dreadful crowds.